User talk:Henke54
Wikidata ID for highway
Hi, your change [1] seems a bit weird. Instead of saying "the concept that corresponds to the OSM highway is a Wikidata road" - thus being able to read up more about the concept, you are saying "the wikidata ID for OSM highway is OSM highway"... This seems useless TBH. Perhaps if we introduced a new property "wikidata item that points to the OSM key"... but even then - I really see no point in that, especially now that we have our own Wikibase Data items, whose content can be queried directly from Wikidata (using Sophox federated queries). --Yurik (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, do whatever you want with it, i am a bit 'fed up' with OSM and wiki-things for the moment ... ;) --Henke54 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Exceptional traffic
What is the point of creating page with "description ; much larger and longer vehicles than 'usual'. " as sole content? BTW, in case of creating pages for tags duplicating widely used tags (like Tag:landcover=water) it should be at least noted that it is an alternative, rarely used tagging scheme Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Tagging mailing list
I will post to tagging mailing list request to review my edits on articles that you recently created and request ti review Tag:landcover=greenery and Tag:waterway=sluice gate Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Page naming convention
Hi,
There is the convention to start the page names for tags with Tag:. I redirected Landcover=hedge accordingly. Just want to let you now. --Tigerfell 
(Let's talk) 17:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss new Tag: and Key: pages
Please use the Proposal process to document new tags. I'd recommend discussing things on the Tagging mailing list first too. For example, landcover=hedge is incorrect - "hedge" is not a type of landcover. The established tag is barrier=hedge. A rare tag like landcover=hedge, which is a synonym for a common, approved tag, should be listed as a possible tagging error, if mentioned at all, rather than creating a full page without mention of the common, well-established tag. You can also make a proposal page, if you would like to replace barrier=hedge with landcover=hedge, for example, although this particular example is very unlikely to be accepted by other mappers and database users. --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with mailing lists, and i don't want anything to do with mailing lists ... also, i made another 'issue' (about dunes) on the forum ->
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=759547#p759547 | https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/coastal-dunes-geomorphology-25822000/ - Henke54
- OK, if you are creating a new tag and using it yourself, it's actually ok to just make a new Key: or Tag: page to describe how you are using it. But if the tag has been used by lots of other people, please try to just describe how other mappers are using it. If there are other similar tags, please mention those on the page too. For example, dunes are landforms, not a type of landcover. I suppose one could say the "landcover" of a dune is either sand or grass (though if it's just sand, that would be the surface=*, not the landcover in OSM), and the tag natural=dune is already used. Try searching taginfo for similar names to find tags that are already being used. If you are interested in requesting that a certain tag be rendered in the Openstreetmap-carto style, please see http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues - e.g. here is the issue which mentions rendering dunes, where you can read the past discussion and add your comments: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/545 --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- For history of why landcover isn't rendered, see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548#issuecomment-272625127, and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548#issuecomment-272659139, and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548#issuecomment-317168946. But before commenting, please read the previous discussion. --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why did you add this text -> your natural=wood - areas mainly covered by trees. is something confusing and actually should be landcover=trees (besides those few old-growth forests ,which ARE 'natural')
- Also, "natural=tree_row - a line of trees, often along a road or as a border between two areas." .... a 'ROW of trees' is artificial and NOT natural -> as found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people... etc ... --Henke54 (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- The texts are taken from the descriptions on the linked wiki pages. The meaning of a tag in OSM does not always match a dictionary definition or wikipedia. For example, the key natural=* is used for all sorts of semi-natural features, including all types of water areas (including canals), artificial lakes, and so on. That's why the description of this key "natural" at Key:natural says: "Used to describes natural physical land features, including ones that have been modified by humans." Most objects tagged natural=tree or natural=tree_row in OSM were planted by humans. One might also argue that all vegetation is natural: it always grows from seeds or other plants. Humans can modify seeds, but we don't create life like Dr. Frankenstein (yet). Similarly, natural=wood was first used in England back in the early days of OSM, in 2005 or 2006. There are no "old-growth forests" in England; this tag was not intended to identify forests of a certain age, but simply any woodland area, including small patchs in the English countryside and between residential areas in villages. Furthermore, I grew up in an area with real "old growth" forests in the USA, yet we know that the local American Indians managed those forests for thousands of years - they didn't clearcut them, but they harvested wood and timber, and set fires periodically to thin the forest and encourage growth of certain plants. No forest is truely "untouched by humans". --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
landcover=dunes
The natural=* in OSM is unfortunately taken to mean both 'natural' and 'unnatural' things! If rendering is all that is wanted then use the tag natural=sand! Adding another tag that won't be rendered, particularly one that is technically incorrect like landcover=dunes does not help. Dunes are land forms, like hills and valleys they have a shape. They are not land covers. Warin61 (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Edit : i made those, but (as usual) they labeled it for deletion, so my 'contribution' of Tag:landform=dune(s) shall probably also not be accepted ... well ... so long then with that 'natural', that actually NO natural is ...so, i stop with this crap and do not 'contribute' anything anymore on the wiki's... and by the way ; i am curious about those ricefields-plateaus (which are a landform)from the picture beneath here, how to tag them ?--Henke54 (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is an open issue at github that requests rendering natural=dune in the Openstreetmap-carto style: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/545 - so natural=dune could be rendered, if someone is interested in working on designing a good rendering. It would also be good to discuss if natural=dune should be added to Map Features and to presets on editors like iD and JOSM, if this has not already happened. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
0 usage tags
Please, do not create pages for unused tags or barely used tags duplicating real tags and without discussion with OSM community (if you dislike mailing lists for some reason - there are also other channels with a decent popularity) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
re: I myself blanked my page Tag:landcover=dunes, and you undid it , why ??
"Why did you do that, because you even yourself mention it as a bad idea?" bad tag ideas can also be documented. With explanation why it is a bad idea and what is a good alternative. It is probably not a best use of time to create new pages with such content, but deleting existing ones is not helpful.
And "landcover=*" tags keeps appearing so, sooner or later someone would create this page anyway Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Recent changes on Tag:landform=dune system
I reverted you most recent changes to Tag:landform=dune system, because I did not see you taking part in a discussion at the talk page, but instead undoing changes by others. Please go to Talk:Tag:landform=dune system and try to sort things out with the other users. --Tigerfell (Let's talk) 14:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)